>But as the debate with Charles implies, the real right to abortion came
>based on the mass mobilization of women that had already forced Ronald
>Reagan to sign a strong abortion rights law as Governor a few years before
>Roe v. Wade. As is common, the Court was ratifying the movement in the
>streets.
not to dismiss the important work of second wave feminism, but Roe v. Wade and it's predecessors were also backed by a movement of physicians (c. 1950s) hoping to avoid prosecution for performing abortions and, more cynically, to exploit what appeared to be a rather promising lucrative practice as sexual mores changed dramatically from the 1920s on. therapeutic abortions were allowed if the physician judged that the woman's physical or emotional health was severely jeopardized. of course, the ambiguity of such claims and the fact that wealthy women could buy such medical pronouncements were powerful reasons for physicians to seek to protect their interests. the legal strategy, then, as with for ex Brown v. BOE Topeka, was staged well in advance of any movement in the streets. Indeed, as i recall, Griswold v. Conn was purposefully pursued precisely for this reason: to lay the ground work for a 'right to privacy' argument which explicitly undermined the state's interest in medical practice re contraception and abortion.
the AMA made sure to outlaw it when it was a fledgling organization (in order to undermine midwives etc) the AMA worked hard to undo those laws later when it served their interests to do so.
kelley